Subject: [Drip] Comments on BLOS definition in drip-req

From: Robert Moskowitz <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 2020 11:03:50 -0500

I am updating draft-moskowitz-drip-secure-nrid-c2 with changes to 
hip-new-crypto.  Along with that, I am updating the definitions section 
to refer to drip-req.

This document is our '1st' to get into Beyond Line of Sight needs. At 
the ASTM F38 virtual conference early November, there was a whole 
section on BLOS.

Seems that the terminology is evolving based on struggles players have 
had in discussions and everything is just BLOS whether it is visual or 
RF.  No need to distinguish, it seems.

So we probably will need to update the related terminology in drip-req

We will see if FAA helps here when they publish the Remote ID rules or 
only muddy this further!

---

From: Robert Moskowitz <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2020 18:18:48 -0500

OK. I see FAA rules using BLOS:

B. Definition of Visual Line of Sight

Discussion of the Final Rule

     The FAA proposed that the term visual line of sight means the 
ability of a person manipulating the flight controls of the unmanned 
aircraft or a visual observer (if one is used) to see the unmanned 
aircraft throughout the entire flight with vision that is unaided by any 
device other than corrective lenses. The FAA recognized that this 
definition is consistent with how “visual line of sight” is currently 
used in part 107. The term is specifically described in § 107.31(a). The 
FAA proposed that because visual line of sight will now be used in 
multiple parts, providing a definition in § 1.1 would ensure that the 
term is used consistently throughout all FAA regulations. To account for 
the use of the term in proposed part 89 and the potential use of the 
term in other parts of 14 CFR, the FAA proposed to include a slightly 
modified version of the description used in part 107.

     The FAA will not be adopting the definition in this rule because 
the concept may apply differently to various persons and conditions 
depending upon the type of operation. In addition, future rules, such as 
rules providing for routine unmanned aircraft BVLOS operations, may need 
to describe visual line of sight in a different manner or context in 
order to establish the difference between VLOS and BVLOS operations.

So FAA has a clear distinction on VLOS and BVLOS.

But nothing in the rules on "Radio line of sight."

On 12/25/20 11:03 AM, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
> hip-new-crypto.  Along with that, I am updating the definitions 
> section to refer to drip-req.
>

---

From: "Card, Stu" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2020 08:10:07 -0500

We originally distinguished RFLOS from VLOS because it is possible to have
the former but not the latter (e.g. due to sparse or dry foliage) such that
Broadcast RID might be received from an aircraft that the observer cannot
see, which could be especially confusing if concurrently there is another
aircraft nearby that he can see (even worse if the visible aircraft is not
broadcasting RID).

On Mon, Dec 28, 2020, 6:19 PM Robert Moskowitz <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> --
> Tm-rid mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tm-rid
>

---

From: Robert Moskowitz <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2020 08:25:58 -0500

But the ASTM BLOS group was dropping the distinction, as even though 
there are cases where you have one and not the other, operationally they 
were the same in terms of design?

I am going to have to talk to the BLOS chair.  Probably beginning of new 
year.

On 12/29/20 8:10 AM, Card, Stu wrote:
> We originally distinguished RFLOS from VLOS because it is possible to 
> have the former but not the latter (e.g. due to sparse or dry foliage) 
> such that Broadcast RID might be received from an aircraft that the 
> observer cannot see, which could be especially confusing if 
> concurrently there is another aircraft nearby that he can see (even 
> worse if the visible aircraft is not broadcasting RID).
>
> On Mon, Dec 28, 2020, 6:19 PM Robert Moskowitz 
> <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
>
>     [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>
>     <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tm-rid>
>
>

-- 
Standard Robert Moskowitz
Owner
HTT Consulting
C:248-219-2059
F:248-968-2824
E:[email-masked]

There's no limit to what can be accomplished if it doesn't matter who 
gets the credit